|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.N. Continues Work on Antiterror Treaties By Jim Wurst UNITED NATIONS — The U.N. General Assembly’s legal committee decided yesterday to continue work on two draft terrorism conventions after negotiators failed to reach consensus on the completion of one of them, a treaty against nuclear terrorism. The second pact, a draft comprehensive antiterrorism treaty, meanwhile continues to be stymied by the inability of nations to agree on a definition of “terrorism.” The committee adopted a resolution by consensus yesterday that reinstates the ad-hoc committee negotiating the two texts. The ad-hoc committee will meet again in March 2005. The draft nuclear convention would outlaw any use or threat of use of a nuclear weapon or other radiological device and would require all states to cooperate in prosecuting individuals accused of committing these crimes. The draft also says such acts “are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.” This language was used in Security Council Resolution 1566, adopted in October 2004, as its definition of terrorism — the closest the entire United Nations has come formulating a definition (see GSN, Oct. 12). The eight-year deadlock in negotiations on the nuclear draft was broken this fall in the run-up to the committee’s annual debate on the treaties. During a three-day debate in October, delegates suggested that agreement on the nuclear draft was close so the committee suspended its work on the item until yesterday so that a small group of states could use the time to work out the remaining details. Most delegations have now accepted compromise language on jurisdictions first proposed in 2002. The language in the current draft says the treaty would not apply if the terrorist act is committed in a single state by a national of that state and that the treaty does not cover actions of national military forces. It also says that the convention “does not address, nor can it be interpreted as addressing, in any way the issue of the legality of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons by states.” Some Islamic states, led by Syria, had wanted the two provisions on jurisdiction dropped. However, they have now accepted that language, according to some delegates involved in the negotiations over the last several weeks. Some delegates said only Pakistan has not accepted the text as a whole. Pakistani officials were not available for comment yesterday or today. The legal committee has been negotiating two draft treaties that would be added to the roster of 12 antiterrorism conventions. The existing, so-called “sectoral” treaties outlaw specific acts — such as hijacking airplane or laundering money — therefore allowing the United Nations to avoid defining terrorism since in these treaties terrorism is defined by the act. The nuclear terrorism treaty would fall into the same category. The comprehensive convention, however, needs a definition. The current draft article on definitions consists of a list of offenses that if committed by “any person” or “a group of persons acting with a common purpose” would constitute a terrorist act. Such offences include “death or serious bodily injury,” “serious damage to public or private property,” and actions taken “with the aim of furthering criminal activity.” However, the Organization of the Islamic Conference wants to include the provision that “peoples’ struggle including armed struggle against foreign occupation … shall not be considered a terrorist crime.” This obvious reference to the Palestinians’ struggle against Israel is opposed by the western states. No headway was made on this contentious issue.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
